openspec_request_approval

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It gives no information about side effects (e.g., whether it sends notifications, creates a pending approval, or is idempotent), permissions required, or response behavior. This is a major gap for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise. However, it is too brief and omits important information. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness; a slightly longer description could still be efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the return value, workflow implications, or how this tool fits into the broader approval process (e.g., after this, users might call openspec_get_approval_status). The schema coverage is high, but the lack of behavioral and usage context leaves the agent underinformed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as constraints or relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Request approval for a change' clearly states the action (request) and the target (approval for a change). It aligns with the tool name and distinguishes it from siblings like openspec_approve_change (which likely performs the approval) and openspec_reject_change. However, it does not specify what kind of change or any context, so it's slightly generic.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as openspec_get_approval_status, openspec_list_pending_approvals, or openspec_approve_change. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical workflow steps, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.